I'm ambivalent about the Schreiber idea. It's not a bad idea, but....
However, I do think a decision should be made about the name. Is it Synthesis Technology or Synthtech? I for one absolutely never use the full two word name, and think it's confusing to have both of them out there. Not to even getting started on the line of synth modules produced by this company - the MOTM line - as if it's just one of several types of modules produced by this company. Consolidate it all the Synthtech, and the type of modules to MOTM, and please don't refer to the frac versions of synthtech modules as MOTM - they aren't.
And I want to remind Paul and everyone ONCE AGAIN - the new version of Paul's business is version 3.0, not 2.0. Version 2.0 started more than 2 years ago, and was fraught with huge delays in shipping. Those who do not remember history are doomed to repeat it, and no-one wants that. Call it what you will, but it IS v3.0.
On Tue, Dec 9, 2008 at 9:30 AM, ROV PILOT
<rovpilots@...> wrote:
I do agree.
--- On Tue, 12/9/08, adambaileynow <adambaileynow@...> wrote:
From: adambaileynow <adambaileynow@...>
Subject: [motm] MOTM 2.0 ... new name.
To: motm@yahoogroups.com
Date: Tuesday, December 9, 2008, 3:53 AM Can I just be the first (as far as I know), to suggest calling the new
format "Schreiber"?
I mean seriously, it sounds good, looks good, and I think you deserve
the props. I'd like to see your name up there where it belongs next
to Moog and Buchla. It belongs there.
Adam
|
,_._,___
--
------------------------------------------------------------------
Stephen Drake
sduck409@...
makeme1witheverything@...